9 comments

• 

  alaninbelfast

  2 years ago

  For all the cinematic magic that you discovered in the story, it wasn't - IMHO - a good film.
  
  Too slow, too rambling, too stuck trying to be clever in portraying the period and forgetting there was an audience falling asleep in their seats.
  
  Bug thumbs down from Alan in Belfast.
  
  (But keep up the reviews)
  reply
• 

  Tom

  2 years ago

  Gald that you guys are back on the air/internet, very much enjoying your podcasts. Haven't listened to the Zodiac review yet, but very much enjoyed Gareth's singing from the previous cast!
  reply
• 

  alaninbelfast

  2 years ago

  Well, there's more singing in the Zodiac episode!
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  2 years ago

  For me the singing is a highlight - am sure you will all join me in pressuring Dr. Higgins to keep the tuneful endings to FilmTalk a-going!
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  2 years ago

  And will have to disagree with 'Alan in Belfast' - I think it was a good 'film' - in the sense that at a basic level it's a meditation on movies back in the days when they meant something - a topic to further explore in upcoming episodes.
  reply
• 

  Tom

  2 years ago

  Just finished listening. I'm also in my mid thirties and satrted going to see films in the late 70s/early 80s. There were fewer cinemas then, or at least fewer screens. Did that mean that there were fewer films released, or was a film's run shorter to allow for the next releases to be screened? I agree with Gareth though, I don't believe 70s output was necessarily better than the good stuff out there now. And another thing! The dark tone of Pirates 3 is so representative of a lot of the so called 'family films' that arrive in the summer season. As a father of young kids I'm becoming increasingly tired of only having a choice of CGI dross (Happy Feet etc.) to take my family to! What happened to decent family films with U or PG certificates? Sorry to rant, what does anyone else think?
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  2 years ago

  One thing to keep in mind of course is that time obscures things re: they made plenty of bad pictures in the 70's, hell, there's tons of terrible pics from the 'classic' age of movies in the 30/40s to choose from - just that almost no one watches them anymore. The kitsch, the crummy, the just plain bad films fall by the wayside and we see only the ones that are both highly regarded and easily available.
  
  And never worry about ranting Tom...what else are blogs for??
  reply
• 

  Mauricio

  1 year ago

  Question: if you guys are so interested in movies that mean something, why do I keep reading reviews of Pirates of the Caribbean, Happy feet and even more worthy films like Zodiac? I mean, what about a podcast totally dedicated to something really good, like the work of the late Ingmar Bergman or Antonioni? ¿Where's your review of the truly provocative Inland Empire? ¿What about Lady Chatterley? There are films that mean something out there, you just feel more comfortable reviewing the bad ones (is easier, I guess). Come on guys, try harder!
  reply
• 

  Jett Loe

  1 year ago

  Interesting points Mauricio - the Film Talk films reviewed were, historically, the ones that Gareth and I could get to see together at the local cinema in Belfast. That's all there is to that really. We just reviewed whatever we happened to see.
  reply